Public preferences regarding slow codes in critical care

The term slow code refers to an intentional reduction in the pace or intensity of resuscitative efforts during a medical emergency. This can be understood as an intermediate level between full code (full resuscitation efforts) and no code (no resuscitation efforts) and serves as a symbolic gesture when intervention is considered medically futile. While some previous research acknowledges the slow code as an integral part of clinical practice, many ethicists have condemned the practice as dishonest and causing unnecessary pain for the patient. As the public's views on this issue have been largely absent from the discussion to date, two vignette experiments were performed to investigate their perceptions. The findings indicate that laypersons believe that slow codes are commonplace and often prefer them over a no code. While a full code was perceived as the standard approach and rated most ethical and least punishable, the present results do not support the widespread assumption that laypersons generally oppose slow codes, and this finding should inform ethical discussion and clinical practice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioethics
Published
2024-10-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13359
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Disaster Response and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.72
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Public preferences regarding slow codes in critical care

Philipp Sprengholz
5 citations
Bioethics
Disaster Response and Management
3.72
article

Public preferences regarding slow codes in critical care

Philipp Sprengholz
article en
5 citations

Abstract

The term slow code refers to an intentional reduction in the pace or intensity of resuscitative efforts during a medical emergency. This can be understood as an intermediate level between full code (full resuscitation efforts) and no code (no resuscitation efforts) and serves as a symbolic gesture when intervention is considered medically futile. While some previous research acknowledges the slow code as an integral part of clinical practice, many ethicists have condemned the practice as dishonest and causing unnecessary pain for the patient. As the public's views on this issue have been largely absent from the discussion to date, two vignette experiments were performed to investigate their perceptions. The findings indicate that laypersons believe that slow codes are commonplace and often prefer them over a no code. While a full code was perceived as the standard approach and rated most ethical and least punishable, the present results do not support the widespread assumption that laypersons generally oppose slow codes, and this finding should inform ethical discussion and clinical practice.

BioethicsVol. 39(4)
University of Erfurt (DE), Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine (DE), University of Bamberg (DE)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Disaster Response and Management
3.72
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Public preferences regarding slow codes in critical care — Philipp Sprengholz · Bioethics (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS